If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

When starting this blog assignment, I didn’t really know the definition of ‘net neutrality,’ and it turns out that it’s hard to find a ‘right’ definition. According to Wikipedia, “Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all broadband networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment attached and the modes of communication allowed would be considered neutral by most advocates, provided it met additional tests relating to the degradation of various communication streams by others. Arguably, no network is completely neutral, hence neutrality represents for some an ideal condition toward which networks and their operators may strive” (Wikipedia 2007).

After doing a lot of reading on the topic, I learned about the debate over network neutrality. The people who are AGAINST network neutrality want there to be fees for big websites. They want to control the content and make money from the big websites. They would control how fast transactions would occur. If this side of the debate won, there would be a regulation on internet content and there is a chance the people would not be allowed to see what they would want to see. Companies like AT&T and Verizon are on this side of the debate because they want to make money. The people FOR network neutrality like the internet the way it is with no fees. Smaller budgeted websites are on this side because they don’t have enough money to pay the kind of fees big companies want to impose. Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are on this side because they are fine as it is. “Popular online content providers like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and others would like to maintain the current status quo, which they claim would preserve the egalitarian philosophy on which the Internet was founded” (Hsing Et Al). They are making so much money that they don’t want to have to pay a fee to be able to do what they’ve been doing for years.

I support network neutrality because I think that if there were a regulation on the Internet, that big websites had to pay then the whole Internet would turn out a little bit “big brother” like. Why should our Internet access be controlled after so many years of it flourishing on it’s own? Why should little companies with small websites have to pay a large fee with money that they don’t have? Why should the companies that are making so much money on their own, all of a sudden have to pay a fee for their success? Small companies wouldn’t be able to have websites and because of that they could never get off the ground. I think that with network neutrality the Internet is a place where we can do what we like, for whatever purpose and not worry about money. If I feel like making a search engine website right now, I could even though I’d have tough competition with companies such as Google. But if there wasn’t network neutrality and the other side won, I wouldn’t be able to make my search engine website because I wouldn’t be able to afford the fee of making the website in the first place.

So, my opinion is that we should just leave things as they are. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Network neutrality. (2007, April 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:55, April 12, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_neutrality&oldid=122005930

Hsing Kenneth Cheng* Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay and Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." Department of Decision and Information Sciences. Warrington College of Business Administration.